LIST OF PANELS

The general objectives of the panel are to discuss the relations between policy evaluation and policy analysis, with the aim to re-bridging the gap between the two sub-disciplines (Geva-May and Pal 1999; Trochim 2009; Vedung 1997; Weiss 1999).

Policy and program evaluation scholars devoted, during the last decades, strong efforts in the development and use of research methodologies (both quantitative and qualitative), following the wave of evidence-based policy making debate; and this has got an influence even on the field of policy studies, if we think of the papers and books using experiment methods, causal mechanisms approach, etc.

On the other side, policy analysis studies pushed forward researches and theoretical proposals regarding many elements of interest for policy evaluation; for example, models to analyze policy success, policy learning, phases of the policy process (policy design, policy implementation), etc.

The policy/program evaluation literature, even recent – both oriented to policy making and to knowledge development (Mark and Henry 2006) – seems to lack systematic connections and exchanges with the researches of the different policy analysis fields.

Scientific Relevance

The question that regards the policy evaluation and policy analysis perspectives has got now a really new relevance in connection with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In fact, the policies designed and implemented to deal with the pandemic need a multifaceted evaluation; some main elements of this complexity can be underlined:

·      in relation to the ‘policy success’, the analyses need not only to study the level of effectiveness, but even for whom the intervention reached a positive influence and the side effects produced;

·      the analysis of the implementation phases emerges as relevant considering a) the debate regarding the defense of ethical and democratic principles, as transparency, accountability, privacy, etc. b) the policy and politics role of measures and indicators; c) the increasing role of digital devices, with the parallel problem of the digital divide cleavages; d) the implementation of policies in multi-level governance contexts;

·      the design processes that are characterizing the anti-pandemic programs are showing the emerging role of scientists as policy advisers and the struggle among scientists themselves;

·      the learning opportunities to adopt/change policies on the basis of new evidences or/and from the effective experiences of others.

With the aim to develop a fruitful exchange between these two sides, the panel aims at deepening the forementioned themes that can be eventually discussed in different sessions.

We invite paper-givers to propose both theoretical and empirical contributions able to integrate policy evaluation and policy analysis, with particular interest on the following themes:

·      the evaluation of policy success based on different perspectives, considering the different actors involved (e.g. technical and political, see McConnell 2010, etc.);

·      the evaluation of the implementation processes, to explore some of the topics listed in the presentation (the implementation of policies in problematic situation and the debate to defend ethical and democratic principles; the policy and political role of measures and indicators; the role of digitalization in the implementation processes and the question of the digital divide; etc.)

·      the evaluation of the policy design processes, to analyze in particular cases in which the role of scientists was relevant as policy advisors and the effectiveness or not of their contribution;

·      the evaluation of policy transfer and lesson-drawing processes (policy learning and non-learning)

·      the evaluation of policy responses to critical/extreme situations, process of adopting new approaches and actions, as well as involving different stakeholders and building networks to face emerging, unexpected problems effectively.

As mentioned, papers based on policies, programs and projects connected with the anti-pandemic SARS-CoV-2 are welcomed.

References

Archer S.L. 2929. “Providing care for the 99.9% during the COVID-19 pandemic: How ethics, equity, epidemiology, and cost per QALY inform healthcare policy.” Healthcare Management Forum 1-4, DOI: 10.1177/0840470420939854.

Boin A., M. Lodge and M. Luesing. 2020. Learning from the COVID-19 crisis: an initial analysis of national responses.” Policy Design and Practice, DOI:10.1080/25741292.2020.1823670.

Dunlop C. , C. Radaelli C. and Ph. Trein (eds). 2018. Learning in Public Policy. Analysis, Modes and Outcome. Basingstocke: Palgrave McMillan.

Geva-May I. and L.A. Pal. 1999. “Good Fences Make Good Neighbours. Policy Evaluation and Policy Analysis Exploring the Differences.” Evaluation 5(3).

Hsiang S. et al. 2020. “The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic.” Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2404-8 (2020).

Lincoln Y.S. and E.E. Guba. 1985. “Research, Evaluation, and Policy Analysis. Heuristics for Disciplined Inquiry.” paper presented at the Evaluation Network/Evaluation Research Society Annual Meeting, 1983 and at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting,1984.

Mark M.M. and G. T. Henry. 2006. “Methods for Policy-Making and for Knowledge Development Evaluations.” In Shaw, Green and Mark (eds). Handbook of Evaluation. London: Sage.

Marier P. “Policy Feedback and Learning.” In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M Ramesh and X. Wu (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, pp. 401-414.

McConnell A. 2010. Understanding Policy Success. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.

Pawson R. 2013. The Science of Evaluation. London: Sage.

Stoker G. and Evans M. 2016. Evidence-based policy making. Methods that Matters. University of Bristol: Policy Press.

Trochim W.M.K. 2009. “Evaluation Policy and Evaluation Practice.” New Directions for Evaluation, 123: 13–32.

Vedung E. 1997. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher.

Weible et al. 2020. “COVID‑19 and the policy sciences: initial reactions and perspectives.” Policy Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09381-4.

Weiss C. 1999. “The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy.” Evaluation 5(4): 468-486.

Woo J.J. 2020. “Pandemic, politics and pandemonium: political capacity and Singapore’s response to the Covid-19 crisis.” Policy Design and Practice, DOI:10.1080/25741292.2020.1835212.